Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37335
|
| Title: | 購屋方案選擇評估指標建立之研究
The Study on Housing Choice Decision-Making Factors for Home-Buyer---An Empirical Analysis of Taipei-Taoyuan Areas |
| Authors: | 黃國保 |
| Contributors: | 林秋瑾
黃國保 |
| Keywords: | 購屋選擇方案
房地產專業人員
方案選擇評估指標
選擇方案機率模型
價差模型
分析層級分析法 |
| Date: | 2006 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-19 13:12:30 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 住宅，不只是一個房子，還是一個家的所在。所以購屋，當然是一生中重大的決定。而與住宅相關的價格、環境、交通、品質、交易安全等這些都需要有專門的知識與經驗。另外住宅還涉及了很多風水、信仰、喜好等沒有對、錯的個人價值觀等問題。而且一生中發生的次數不多，不容易累積足夠的知識與經驗，所以要從購屋市場供給的產品中，找到完全符合自身需求住宅，不但一般人不容易做到，即使不動產的專業相關人員，由於購屋過程涉及多樣專業，亦不能面面俱到，作出最佳的購屋決策。本研究藉由文獻回顧與實證分析，就這個即重大又複雜的購屋問題，探討三個主題，其研究結果之結論如下：
一、我國各購屋方案可量化購屋影響因素，所存在的價格差異性
在實證結果部分，不論從地區上的分類，或是從時間上的分類，經自我選擇偏誤問題校正後。其拍賣市場相對於搜尋市場的住宅價格折價百分率確有差異，折價差異大約在1.53% ~3.69%間。實證結果顯示，購屋時機的不同階段呈現價差差異性，在2005~2007年第一季期期間景氣狀況較佳時價差不明顯之外，由不同地區與第一階段購屋時機(2003~2004) 景氣狀況較差時結果都顯示拍賣市場相對於搜尋市場的住宅價格仍有17%~24%明顯的折價現象。然替選方案之購屋影響因素，除了價格因素之價差外，仍有可量化之住宅條件因素與可量化之購屋者條件因素顯示其重要性。
二、不動產從業人員和一般人購屋決策的差異性
在這個主題裡，我們利用AHP(分析層級分析法)探討了與不動產密切的不動產從業人員和一般的購屋者，由不同地區來看，其最大的不同，是在台北縣及桃園縣的「不動產從業人員」購屋者，都最重視「住宅條件」，但在台北市的「不動產從業人員」的選擇上，卻優先考慮的是「價格」。
三、消費者購屋選擇決策的影響因素之評估指標及方案分析
我們利用AHP(分析層級分析法)，在台北市、台北縣、桃園縣三個地區，分別進行問卷調查、評估指標分析。發現在最優先考慮購屋方案的問題上，在五個購屋替代方案預售屋、成屋、金拍屋、銀拍屋、法拍屋，消費者最可能的購屋方案都是選擇成屋，權重都是五個替選方案中最高者。從此一結果結果得知，就購屋者認知的效用而言，成屋優於預售屋，且優於各拍賣市場的金拍、銀拍、法拍。
影響消費者選擇購屋決定的四個評估指標為價格、住宅條件、交易制度及購屋者條件四個因素，其中購屋者最重視的是「價格」及「住宅條件」，特別是價格，在台北市不論是「不動產從業人員」及「一般購屋者」、台北縣的「一般購屋者」及桃園縣「一般購屋者」，其權重都是四個評估指標中最高者。「價格」仍是大部分購屋決策中最重要的影響因素。但是不是有坊間所提的：「沒有賣不出去的房子，只有賣不出去的價格」，那般極端強調「價格」就是一切呢？仍值得商榷。
另外，在評估指標之影響因素細準則方面，從「價格」準則中其第三層細準則三個因素價差、交易費用、貸款中都為前三項之首選，可見得在購屋市場中建立「價格」資訊、秩序是很迫切的。在影響房屋住宅條件的因素中內環境、外環境為前三項之首選，而內環境為不論地區或各種購屋著都為重要考慮因素。「不動產從業人員」及「一般購屋者」的受訪者，除了價差為共同考量因素外，其差異性為前者亦考慮貸款，而後者加入交易費用之考量。以地區性來看只有桃園縣之不動產從業人員較重視環境，其他地區仍以價差為首選之考量因素。
A residence is not just a house but also a place where people set up their homes. Purchasing a house is certainly a very important decision throughout everyone’s lifetime. However, the elements such as pricing, environment, traffic, quality, and transaction security that are closely in connection with such an important choice all take specialized knowledge as well as experiences. Besides, to appraise a residence also involves some personal view of values such as fate, beliefs, and fondness, which are rather difficult to be thought of as good or bad. Moreover, purchasing a house is something that isn’t going to happen frequently throughout one’s life, so there won’t be many chances to accumulate enough knowledge and experiences in this field. Not only is it difficult for common public to choose, among the supply of housing market, a residence that would completely meet their own demand but it is quite a challenge for a professional real estate agent to make a decision on how to purchasing a most suitable residence as the process is often so diversified and specialized. In this study, by means of reviewing related documents and analysis, three main subjects based on this critical and complicated issue of house purchasing have been explored, and the conclusions of the research are given as follows:
1. The price differences among quantifiable and determination factors of each house purchasing alternatives.
In practices, it is verified that whether it is classified based on regional divisions or based on timing of purchasing, differences do exist in housing price discount percentage between auctioning market and searching market after correcting the estimate bias of self-selection, and differences of price discount fall roughly between 1.53% and 3.69. It is also verified that, by observing various districts in the first house purchasing stage (2003~2004), a period falling in economical recession, price differences do vary with different purchasing timings in the stage. The price differences of the auctioning market relative to searching market appear significant price discount percentage ranging from 17% to 24%. The only exception to this case might be during each of the first seasons in the years from 2005 to 2007, a period of booming economy, in which price differences didn’t seem so significant. However, when it comes to decisive factors of alternative house purchasing choices, there are still some quantifiable elements of resident condition and quantifiable purchaser elements that can be evaluated in addition to price differences.
2. The difference in making decision on house purchasing between real estate professionals and ordinary buyers.
In this theme, we utilize AHP to explore the interaction between real estate professionals who are closely related to this industry and ordinary buyers. From the regional point of view, the most significant variance appears in Taoyuan County and Taipei County where real estate professionals and ordinary buyers both value “resident conditions” as a most important factor while in Taipei City real estate professionals would view the price as the first priority.
3. Evaluation indicators and alternatives analysis of the factors which affect consumer in making decision on house purchasing.
Adopting AHP as an analytical method, we carried out questionnaire survey in Taipei City, Taipei County, and Taoyuan County as well as analyze their appraisal indicators. The findings are that, among five purchasing programs, namely newly completed houses, houses ordered before being built, houses auctioned by court, houses auctioned by banks, and houses auctioned by private financial sectors, the most likely case that consumers will choose is that of newly completed houses.
The four evaluation indicators that have affected consumers’ decision on buying a house are price, residential conditions, transaction system, and purchasers’ conditions. Among them, price and residential conditions are given more weight by consumers, but price alone possesses the highest weight to which both real estate professionals and ordinary buyers in Taipei City, ordinary buyers in Taipei County, and ordinary buyers in Taoyuan County all have given. Price is still the most influential factor when making a decision on house purchasing. However, is it realistic that price is so decisive as to reach to the extent like many people say “There is not any unmarketable house but an unacceptable level of price” ? The extremely aspect of this view needs be further considering deliberately.
As for the influential factors set up under the four evaluation indicators, here are the analyses: The three factors (price difference, transaction fee, and loan) of the first indicator named “housing price” are the first three valued factors either observed based on regional variance or based on purchasers. It can therefore be realized that how important and urgent it is to establish “price” information of the house purchasing market. In the second appraisal indicator named residential conditions, internal/external environment are the first three valued factors. However, internal environment seems to have more priority, and that is quite consistent with the traits of our fellow people, most of whom think only to care about themselves. Such phenomenon is quite common in many residential communities nowadays.
The real estate professionals and ordinary buyers both value “price difference” as a most important factor while the former added the factor of transaction fee, and the latter added up loan. From the difference areas point view, only Taoyuan County value “environment” more important than others. The rest of areas value “housing price” is the most important factor than others. |
| Reference: | 中文部分
1. 王啟聰，1995，「建設公司商譽對住宅價格影響之研究」臺中市購屋者對住宅需求之研究，逢甲大學土地管理研究所碩士論文：台中。
2. 李信佩，1996，「家戶組成對住宅租購選擇影響之研究─以台北市為例」，政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
3. 周福銓，2005，「金拍屋與法拍屋拍賣期間分析-以台北市為例」，世新大學財務金融學研究所碩士論文：台北。
4. 林月萍，2003，「房屋市場住宅產品之顧客消費期望偏好知識型決策支援系統」，朝陽科技大學建築及都市設計研究所碩士論文。
5. 林秋瑾，1998，「預售屋與成屋住宅價格關係之分析—市場效率之驗證」，『管理學報』，15：654-658。
6. 林袓嘉，1992，「台灣地區房租與房價關係之研究」，『台灣銀行季利』，43(1)：279-312。
7. 林嵩麟，1999，「成屋價格影響因素之研究」，朝陽大學企業管理系碩士論文：台中。
8. 洪啟釗，2002，「影響消費者購買住宅房屋考量因素之研究 － 以屏東縣（市）為例」，開南管理學院企業管理研究所碩士論文。
9. 洪瑞嬣，2003，「住宅空間環境及風水之調查研究」國立高雄應用科技大學土木工程與防災科技研究所論文，高雄。
10. 胡誌芳，1989，「台北市民住宅選擇與購宅能力之研究」，政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
11. 范垂爐，1980，「房地產真實交易價格之研究」，政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
12. 高文津，2000，「住宅屬性與房 價關係之研究----以嘉義市蘭潭地區為例」國立中正大學碩士論文，嘉義。
13. 張育彰，1993，「台中市房地產之地理研究-以預售屋為例」，文化大學地政研究所碩士論文：台北。
14. 張金鶚、林秋瑾、楊宗憲，1996，「住宅價格指數之研究-以台北市為例」，『住宅學報』，4：1-30。
15. 張金鶚、劉秀玲，1993，「房地產品質、價格與消費者物價指數之探討」，『國立政治大學學報』，67：369- 400。
16. 張春龍，1999，「住宅選擇模型之研究─以台南市為例」長榮管理學院經營管理研究所碩士論文：台南。
17. 許文香，2004，「家戶住宅選擇變遷之研究-以台北市1990年與2000年為例」，逢甲大學土地管理研究所碩士論文：台中。
18. 郭志宏，2005，「影響住宅法拍屋拍定價格因素之研究-以桃園市為例」，開南管理學院財務金融系碩士論文：桃園。
19. 陳文賢，1986，『管理科學-作業研究與數量方法』，台北
20. 陳冠燁、謝靜琪，「國際級休閒旅館設址指標建立之研究」，『台灣土地金融季刊』，38：P69-84。
21. 陳雪莉，2005，「台南科學園區工程師住宅選擇之個案研究」，國立成功大學企業管理學系碩博士論文：台南。
22. 陳漢碩，2004，「生活型態及人口統計變數對消費者購屋行為之研究」，中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文：桃園。
23. 陳憶茹，2004，「拍賣制度、市場機制與法拍屋價格之分析」，政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
24. 章耀玲，1997，「台南市住宅預售價格影響因素之研究」，國立成功大學統計學系碩士論文：台南。
25. 彭芳琪，2004，「不同拍賣機制對不良資產價格之影響」，政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
26. 黃瓅緯，1997，「房屋銷售市場區隔之研究－以三重市個案為例」，政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
27. 楊宗憲，1995，「住宅價格指數之研究」政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
28. 詹連終，1992，「台灣地區自來水經營體體制問題之研究」，『中國統計學報』，92：30：P45-62。
29. 廖仲仁，2005，「住宅市場之價格搜尋行為-定錨效果、仲介服務與市場機制選擇之行響」，政治大學地政學系博士論文：台北。
30. 劉秀玲，1992，「房地產品質、價格與消費者物價指數之探討」，國立中興大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文：台北。
31. 劉振誠，1985，「住宅價格影響因素之研究－－以台北市松山、中山、大安、古亭區為例」，國立中興大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文：台北。
32. 蔡芬蓮，1997，「法拍屋價格影響因素之研究-以台北市為例」，政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
33. 鄭英信，2005，「台中市住宅中古屋投資決策因素之探討」，中華大學營建管理研究所碩士論文。
34. 賴碧瑩，2003，「不動產估價新商品-法拍、金拍、銀拍屋」，『鑑定論壇』，92：01：P3-9。
35. 顏炳立，2004，「顏炳立教你買屋致富」，台北：知遠文化事業有限公司。
36. 蘇國榮，2003，「建設公司商譽對住宅價格影響之研究」建設公司商譽對住宅價格影響之研究，政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
外文部分
1. Adams, Paul D. & Kluger, Brian D. & Wyatt, Steve B., 1992, “Integrating auction and search market：the Dutch auction,” Joural of Real Eeal estate Finance and Economics, 5(3)：239-253. .
2. Dotzour, M.G., Moorhead, E. and Winkler, D.T., 1998, “The Impact of Auction on Residential Sales Pricing in New Zealand,” Journal of Real Estate Research, 16(1)：57-71.
3. Frew, J. & Jud, G.D., 2003, “Estimating the Value of Apartment Buildings,” The Journal of Real Estate Research, 25(1)：77-86.
4. Lusht, K.M., 1996, “A Comparison of Prices Brought by English Auction and Private Negotiations,” Real Estate Economics, 24(4)：517-530.
5. Mayer, C. J., 1998,“Assessing the performance of real estate auction,” Real Estate Economic, 26(1)：41-66.
6. Mayer, C. J., 1995, “A model of negotiated sales applied to real estate autions,” Journal of Urban Economic, 38(1)：1-22.
7. McAfee, P. and McMillan, J., 1987, “Auction and bidding,” Journal of Economecs Association Journal, 25(2)：699-738.
8. Milgorom, P. R. and R. J. Weber, 1982, “A Theory of Auctions And Competitive Bidding”, Ecomometrica 50, 1089-1122.
9. Quan, D.C., 2002, “Market Mechanism Choice and Real Estate Disposition：Search vs Auction, ”Real Estate Economic, 30(3)：365-384.
10. Vickrey, W., 1961,“Counterspeculation, aution, and competitive sealed tenders,” Journal of Finance, 16(1)：8-37.
11. Wilson, R., 1977, “A bidding mode of perfect competition,” Review of economic studies”, 44(3)：511-518. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
地政研究所
93923004
95 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093923004 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [地政學系] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
